Bit off the subject but The DGAC has just certified a single engine aeroplane for public transport IFR. I would love to know how they have done that considering they are an EASA country. Or is it just typical French sticking 2 fingers up !!!!!!!!!!!

.
Low level as usual ...


DGAC as an exemption from EASA because this one would like to change the regulation on this matter and needs experience for that.

I koow, it's a positive point of view from EASA ans some here don't like change ...

.

It is quite long time under consideration for EASA lands
Like here:
http://www.easa.europa.eu/rulemaking...0Issue%202.pdf
It is expected that EASA OPS full implementation, will bring soon single engine IFR to fix wing-s and rotorcrafts with some limitations.

At the moment France and Finland use derogation for single turbine fixwing PAX ops...

The aforementioned BAC Longranger is SAS and AP equipped (3-axis) and certified for SE IFR.

Appendix B of this document gives you an idea of what must be demonstrated for instrument certification of small rotorcraft (<3175kg & <9 pax seats).

Two IFR 206 Longrangers in Sweden are also SAS equiped with 2-axis-oldfashion-but-good-autopilots.

If you have relatively flat terrain (I mean, no mountains) below you, and reasonable amount of space between the terrain and cloud base (let's say 500-1000') it's not the problem to stay in clouds with SE.

But, probably it's not acceptable for CAT.

JR

These old JetRangers probably run under grandfather rights. Is there something in the current certification rules preventing single engines for IFR ? Or ist there just no market for it without CAT ?

You are right. I think these days it's not possible to certificate such a helicopters anymore ...

JR

It looks like the certification issue is likely to be your problem.

I've checked the a/c that I thought most likely to meet CS27 Appendix B, the EC130B4 with dual hydraulics, SAS, two axis autopilot, etc. yet in the limitations section it still says 'The helicopter is approved to operate by day and night in VFR'.

I think it's probably right that the manufacturers can't be bothered to certify the a/c for IFR/IMC flight, even if the equipment fit would allow it, because there's no market for it.

I think this makes sense: even SE helicopter that could be certified for IFR operation, because they have the stability required for certification, won't be IFR certified because there is no market.

Happily flying a B206 IFR regularly in oz...:cool:

single eng IMC
 

To Evil Twin...Wishing you good luck if you have an engine failure when in IMC.
Enjoy your autorotation on instruments waiting to pop out for a landing "somewhere".

unlikely to happen ...
 

Enjoy - YES!

Needing to be IMC - rare

Engine fail - unlikely

Not popping out in a good place - also unlikely.

(That's unlikely^3)

"waiting to pop out" - not necessarily going to pop out but you'd still be unlucky for it to be unsurvivable - 40kts, into wind, lever up gently from about 3 to 8 meters, surface in sight. Rad Alt would make even easier. Probably survivable, maybe messy...

Potential safety gain to be had by allowing SE IMC in helos - like they do for Aeroplanes.

Aeroplanes do SE IMC regularly... and landing is worse for them



prune needs a coat emoticon - I'm not advocating it - just sayin'...

What we do know is that the current rules and training are not working re CFIT .
The fixed wings developed an IMC rating that has massively improved safety . They now don't need to grope along at sub 500ft to get home or to a suitable airport if they get caught out by the weather . IF , and its a big if , the rules and training went the same way then we may see the same improvement . Also if the demand for cheap helicopter autopilots increased dramatically the price would come down dramatically . I certainly don't see a big difference in safety between a properly equipped IFR twin and a single and banging on about an engine failure during the 1% of time you are likely to be flying in cloud is not a properly thought out argument .... There are plenty of other things that will bring a twin down just as quick as a single !!
The cost of training will of course go up , as will the cost of the helicopter but it would at least give people an option . Single engine planes can I believe now fly commercially ifr and twins cross the Atlantic ... So you never know . I just know I have felt a lot safer ifr in say a suitable squirrel or 500 than grovelling low level . ( obviously with a suitably experienced , current instrument rated pilot !!)

Well years ago used to fly a mil 341 in IMC with no sas or come to that sat nav or nav system, don't include mini tans as it never seemed to work when it was wet outside. How many accidents did the UK mil have with a singe engine in IMC ? The adage about a twin is rubbish when you look at the number of engine failures helicopter have, greater percentage of accidents are CFIT then engine failure

The UH-1 in the German Air Force and Army flew in IMC on a regular basis and I never heard of an forced AR in IMC due to engine failure. But there was an Army CH53, which lost both engines ( icing ), popped out at 500' GND and made a safe AR-landing in the grass...


skadi

So .... Are we saying that there should be another look at getting ( properly equipped ) singles up high and safe rather than scudding around trying to stay vfr ?? When you look at the apparent statistics for all ifr flights it looks compelling . The illogical fear of an engine failure versus inadvertent ifr and then CFIT should be challenged . I know a large number of excellent pilots who have flown and do fly ifr in singles and the one thing they all have in common is that they feel a lot safer above the obstacles and not amongst them . If and when I get another single , I shall almost certainly follow their lead and either land or go up rather than grovel !!
Will the lunatics who run this asylum even look at this as a possible safety development , as per the IMC for planks ???

If you were to impose a Ceiling and Vis Limit on singles that would allow for a visual EOL Landing after breaking cloud....even the fear of Engine Failure would be greatly diminished not withstanding how infrequently they happen anyway.

I would worry more about the single Generator failing than I would the engine failing.

Likewise, Single Pilot IFR in a Helicopter without a nice operable SAS/Auto Pilot system can get very darn interesting too.

At least in the Huey....sans SAS....we always had two Pilots.

Single Pilot IFR in a Bell 412 with a full Sperry Kit was work....but when the Sperry Kit went on strike.....it was an altogether different story......it got to be very damn hard work with not a lot of margin for error.

Good points . I imagine that IF the rules changed the manufacturers could look at building these things into ifr machines ? As I said before , the cost of autopilot could plummet if they started fitting to a lot of singles . It would be interesting to the the accident stats ( CFIT ) on planks before and after the IMC rating came in .... I suspect the figures dropped to almost zero .....

AnFI,

Why do you say that? Some of us routinely need to fly IMC, and do so.

I agree with SASless regarding the genny failure situation. Problem with a single is that it's more difficult to design in the duplicated electrical systems required. If a single donk stops, you are likely to have more than a "straightforward" autorotation to deal with.

Nige, I think you own and operate your own helicopter, so I guess you have had a lot of experience dealing with the manufacturers.

Do you really believe that?